Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Matched pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for the treatment of T3 renal cell carcinoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for T1–T2 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are well established. We aim to determine whether LRN is a comparable alternative to open radical nephrectomy (ORN) in the treatment of T3 RCC using a matched pair analysis study design.

Methods

A review of a prospectively collected database at the Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, between 2000 and 2011 was conducted. Patient pairs were matched based on age at operation, gender, histological subgroup, maximal tumour diameter, TNM stage and grade. Patient demographics, operative and post-operative outcomes were compared. Overall, cancer-specific and progression-free survival [overall survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS)] were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

From 252 patients with T3 disease, 25 pairs were matched. Patients were of median age 66.2 years, 64 % male. Tumours were all clear cell RCC, were stage pT3a (32 %) or pT3b and had maximal tumour diameters of 8.7 cm for LRN and 10.0 cm for ORN. Estimated blood loss (100 ml LRN; 650 ml ORN, p < 0.001) and length of post-operative hospital stay (4 days LRN: 9 days ORN, p < 0.001) were lower in the LRN group. Operation time and post-operative complication rates were comparable. CSS and PFS were comparable with a mean CSS of 91.3 months for LRN and 88.7 months for ORN.

Conclusion

This study reports the longest median follow-up in a T3 LRN cohort. In matched patients, LRN has been shown to have a superior perioperative profile to ORN for the treatment of pT3a/b RCC, with no adverse effect on midterm oncological outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lindblad P (2004) Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Scand J Surg 93(2):88–96

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Bex A, Canfield S, Dabestani B, Hofmann F, Hora H, Kuczyk MA, Lam T, Marconi L, Merseburger AS, Mulders PFA, Staehler M, Volpe A (2013) EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma. Cited 01/08/2013; http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/10_Renal_Cell_Carcinoma_LRV2.pdf

  4. Lam JS, Belldegrun AS, Pantuck AJ (2006) Long-term outcomes of the surgical management of renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 24(3):255–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burgess NA et al (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic v open nephrectomy. J Endourol 21(6):610–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hemal AK et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for large renal tumors: a long-term prospective comparison. J Urol 177(3):862–866

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Permpongkosol S et al (2005) Long-term survival analysis after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol 174(4 Pt 1):1222–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bensalah K et al (2009) Survival of patients with nonmetastatic pT3 renal tumours: a matched comparison of laparoscopic vs open radical nephrectomy. BJU Int 104(11):1714–1717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ganpule AP et al (2008) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy versus open radical nephrectomy in T1–T3 renal tumors: an outcome analysis. Indian J Urol 24(1):39–43

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Westera J et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for pathological T3 renal cell carcinoma: a single centre review of clinical and oncological outcomes. BJU Int 107:26–27

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart GD et al (2012) Description and validation of a modular training system for laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Endourol 26(11):1512–1517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McLoughlin J, Burgess N, Motiwala H, Speakman MJ, Doble A, Kelly JD (eds) (2013) Top tips in urology, 2nd edn. Wiley Online, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA

    Google Scholar 

  13. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG, Morrow M (eds) (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer, New York

  14. Clavien PA et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Marszalek M et al (2009) Laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy: a matched-pair comparison of 200 patients. Eur Urol 55(5):1171–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rubin DB (1973) Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 29(1):159–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stewart GD et al (2012) The operative safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic nephrectomy for T3 renal cell cancer. BJU Int 110(6):884–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guzzo TJ et al (2009) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for patients with pathologic T3b renal-cell carcinoma: the Johns Hopkins experience. J Endourol 23(1):63–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hattori R et al (2009) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large renal-cell carcinomas. J Endourol 23(9):1523–1526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dillenburg W et al (2006) Retroperitoneoscopic versus open surgical radical nephrectomy for large renal cell carcinoma in clinical stage cT2 or cT3a: quality of life, pain and reconvalescence. Eur Urol 49(2):314–322; discussion 322–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Laird A et al (2013) A generation of laparoscopic nephrectomy: stage-specific surgical and oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic nephrectomy in a single center. J Endourol 27(8):1008–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Desai MM et al (2003) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for cancer with level I renal vein involvement. J Urol 169(2):487–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Malley RL et al (2009) The necessity of adrenalectomy at the time of radical nephrectomy: a systematic review. J Urol 181(5):2009–2017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lane BR et al (2009) Management of the adrenal gland during partial nephrectomy. J Urol 181(6):2430–2436; discussion 2436–2437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the help of all surgeons involved in the care of the patients included in this study, especially Mr. Tim Hargreave.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, and no funding was received for this study.

Ethical standard

Formal ethics committee approval was not required for this study, but the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Laird.

Additional information

A. Laird and K. C.C. Choy have contributed equally to this work.

G. D Stewart and A. C. P. Riddick have contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laird, A., Choy, K.C.C., Delaney, H. et al. Matched pair analysis of laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy for the treatment of T3 renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 33, 25–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1280-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1280-y

Keywords

Navigation